![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with Kahastok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - ... (up to 100) |
|
(article has since been deleted as non-notable Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
Pfainuk, Do you have a problem with how i've edited the English Independence Party article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 October, 2006 (UTC)
Right now, yes. I don't think it's worth getting in a major flap over such a small political party, but I think that the current revision is fairly clearly POV - even more so than before with the new word "we". My objections are clearly mentioned on the talk page. I'm putting a POV template at the top, to flag this up, since it seems to be only two of us working on that page. Pfainuk 11:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from my user page):
We'll have to compromise won't we? I edited the page with a few sentences of the EIP paragraph from the website which I help write. I may have been blind to the fact that it might be seem as a POV. Onto another note is it fine with you if I add the EIP logo? Just out of interest, are you a member of the EIP?
R Johnson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 October, 2006 (UTC)
We will have to - or agree to disagree until another editor comes along and makes some kind of judgement - the party website is I guess a good source for info but the goal is different (to promote, more than to inform). I still believe that the final sentence I mentioned on the talk page is unnecessary and potentially misleading, in that it implicitly associates the EIP with the major parties - parties that do not appear to have a significant amount in common with the EIP. The EIP logo would be perfectly proper and expected.
I am not a member of the EIP and disagree strongly with some of the policies listed, but in this case I'm more interested in keeping this article neutral than trying to score political points. Pfainuk 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've posted some thoughts on your revert at talk:.gs. In short, good job! - Thanks, Hos hie 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing my revision? The least you could do is send a message to the editor explaining your reasons. Salomee gum naan bin ohda 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've only reverted once - the other was another editor, and a third appears to agree with us on that editor's talk page. Your source doesn't appear to go anywhere near saying what your edit claims it to, and thus is original research per WP:SYN. Nor does it appear to be reliable per WP:V. I also fail to see the relevance of such information to the page List of Apollo missions. We do have a page dealing with such claims. Since this is controversial material, liable to be challenged, please try to get a proper consensus on the talk page before adding it again. I will be removing it once more. Pfainuk 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
NB. I have copied this to the page's talk page. Pfainuk 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I prefer not to give out my e-mail address to people I don't know over Wikipedia.
Pfainuk
19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
well i suppose i can talk about this here, hopefully there aren't many people reading this. i assume you have read the article i referred to as a source. i have verified the 2 men in the article. both of these men are telling the truth, though it is very unbelievable. i would not have edited this article without verifying their story first. verifiability is just as important to me as it is to wikipedia. truth is stranger than fiction. one man's name is (removed by Pfainuk). he lives in (removed by Pfainuk). the other man's name is "ptah", his real name and residence are a mystery. Salomee gum naan bin ohda 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm glad that you consider verifiability to be so important, the spirit of the
verifiability policy is that information should be verifiable by all through the sources we give, without their needing to dig up too much. In principle, the full verification should be available through the article - and this is particularly true where the sentiments expressed are likely to be in dispute. If the verification is not pretty airtight, the material will likely be deleted again and again because people (in general) are unlikely to take it on faith that you have successfully verified such contentious information without seeing the verification for themselves. I'm not the only one who's reverted your edit, nor am I the only one who was likely to - and not everyone's as likely to assume good faith to the extent that I am.
For the reasons you've given, you'd presumably prefer not to give such verification, which will make it difficult for that information to be included in the article. But if you do keep adding it without airtight verifiability, it's you that's likely to come off looking worse, not those that revert you.
I have WP:OR issues as well with this source, since they state that the pictures are missing and that the landing was faked - but I would dispute this inference - if pictures are missing, it implies only that pictures are missing, not that the landing was faked. Pfainuk 10:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work - well done! The poor little stub that I started has changed out of all recognition today. Bencherlite Talk 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You accidently left off a closing reference tag. Also the reference given with the sentence about the EU does not cover what is said. Do they really want an "internationally controlled zone" or do they want the same as the US. Also, this sentence "Most maritime nations,[14] consider them to be a "transit passage", an international strait where foreign vessels have right of passage,[15] giving Canada only a few rights to control shipping, and not allowing Canadian law to apply in full.[16]" seems to me to be a bit sympathetic towards Canada. How about something like;
"Most maritime nations, [1] consider them to be an " international strait", where foreign vessels have the right of innocent passage or "transit passage", [2] giving Canada the same rights over the Northwest Passage as with other territorial waters. [3]
Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(from England, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
I have replied to your reply on the England talkpage, i woudl very much like to come to some agreement on this matter, cheers. Gazh 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(from Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
I was just about to edit the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands when I noticed you'd already done it. Cheers mate. Justin A Kuntz 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(from Falkland Islands, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
Not sure what to make of our enthusiatic contributor to the Talk:Falkland Islands page. It did cross my mind he was trolling as he has made no attempt to address the reference to wiki policies put to him. What do you think, troll or over enthusiatic newbie? Justin A Kuntz 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Thanks for the support on the mediation page. I tend to agree that mediators shouldn't expect to get much out of it, I really can't see our friend accepting mediators views on his edit history any more than he does ours. I really don't see what he is hoping to achieve, since virtually every statement he makes just goes to back up our statements. The "debate" has already gone round in circles there again and he has already turned abusive. I really can't see what the agenda is here, its eventually going to end up in arbcom if it continues as it has so far.
I still have a nagging suspicion we're dealing with a sock here, I wonder if there is any way to check? Justin A Kuntz 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions with Kahastok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - ... (up to 100) |
|
(article has since been deleted as non-notable Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
Pfainuk, Do you have a problem with how i've edited the English Independence Party article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 October, 2006 (UTC)
Right now, yes. I don't think it's worth getting in a major flap over such a small political party, but I think that the current revision is fairly clearly POV - even more so than before with the new word "we". My objections are clearly mentioned on the talk page. I'm putting a POV template at the top, to flag this up, since it seems to be only two of us working on that page. Pfainuk 11:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from my user page):
We'll have to compromise won't we? I edited the page with a few sentences of the EIP paragraph from the website which I help write. I may have been blind to the fact that it might be seem as a POV. Onto another note is it fine with you if I add the EIP logo? Just out of interest, are you a member of the EIP?
R Johnson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 October, 2006 (UTC)
We will have to - or agree to disagree until another editor comes along and makes some kind of judgement - the party website is I guess a good source for info but the goal is different (to promote, more than to inform). I still believe that the final sentence I mentioned on the talk page is unnecessary and potentially misleading, in that it implicitly associates the EIP with the major parties - parties that do not appear to have a significant amount in common with the EIP. The EIP logo would be perfectly proper and expected.
I am not a member of the EIP and disagree strongly with some of the policies listed, but in this case I'm more interested in keeping this article neutral than trying to score political points. Pfainuk 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've posted some thoughts on your revert at talk:.gs. In short, good job! - Thanks, Hos hie 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing my revision? The least you could do is send a message to the editor explaining your reasons. Salomee gum naan bin ohda 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've only reverted once - the other was another editor, and a third appears to agree with us on that editor's talk page. Your source doesn't appear to go anywhere near saying what your edit claims it to, and thus is original research per WP:SYN. Nor does it appear to be reliable per WP:V. I also fail to see the relevance of such information to the page List of Apollo missions. We do have a page dealing with such claims. Since this is controversial material, liable to be challenged, please try to get a proper consensus on the talk page before adding it again. I will be removing it once more. Pfainuk 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
NB. I have copied this to the page's talk page. Pfainuk 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I prefer not to give out my e-mail address to people I don't know over Wikipedia.
Pfainuk
19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
well i suppose i can talk about this here, hopefully there aren't many people reading this. i assume you have read the article i referred to as a source. i have verified the 2 men in the article. both of these men are telling the truth, though it is very unbelievable. i would not have edited this article without verifying their story first. verifiability is just as important to me as it is to wikipedia. truth is stranger than fiction. one man's name is (removed by Pfainuk). he lives in (removed by Pfainuk). the other man's name is "ptah", his real name and residence are a mystery. Salomee gum naan bin ohda 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm glad that you consider verifiability to be so important, the spirit of the
verifiability policy is that information should be verifiable by all through the sources we give, without their needing to dig up too much. In principle, the full verification should be available through the article - and this is particularly true where the sentiments expressed are likely to be in dispute. If the verification is not pretty airtight, the material will likely be deleted again and again because people (in general) are unlikely to take it on faith that you have successfully verified such contentious information without seeing the verification for themselves. I'm not the only one who's reverted your edit, nor am I the only one who was likely to - and not everyone's as likely to assume good faith to the extent that I am.
For the reasons you've given, you'd presumably prefer not to give such verification, which will make it difficult for that information to be included in the article. But if you do keep adding it without airtight verifiability, it's you that's likely to come off looking worse, not those that revert you.
I have WP:OR issues as well with this source, since they state that the pictures are missing and that the landing was faked - but I would dispute this inference - if pictures are missing, it implies only that pictures are missing, not that the landing was faked. Pfainuk 10:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work - well done! The poor little stub that I started has changed out of all recognition today. Bencherlite Talk 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You accidently left off a closing reference tag. Also the reference given with the sentence about the EU does not cover what is said. Do they really want an "internationally controlled zone" or do they want the same as the US. Also, this sentence "Most maritime nations,[14] consider them to be a "transit passage", an international strait where foreign vessels have right of passage,[15] giving Canada only a few rights to control shipping, and not allowing Canadian law to apply in full.[16]" seems to me to be a bit sympathetic towards Canada. How about something like;
"Most maritime nations, [1] consider them to be an " international strait", where foreign vessels have the right of innocent passage or "transit passage", [2] giving Canada the same rights over the Northwest Passage as with other territorial waters. [3]
Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(from England, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
I have replied to your reply on the England talkpage, i woudl very much like to come to some agreement on this matter, cheers. Gazh 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(from Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
I was just about to edit the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands when I noticed you'd already done it. Cheers mate. Justin A Kuntz 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(from Falkland Islands, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
Not sure what to make of our enthusiatic contributor to the Talk:Falkland Islands page. It did cross my mind he was trolling as he has made no attempt to address the reference to wiki policies put to him. What do you think, troll or over enthusiatic newbie? Justin A Kuntz 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Thanks for the support on the mediation page. I tend to agree that mediators shouldn't expect to get much out of it, I really can't see our friend accepting mediators views on his edit history any more than he does ours. I really don't see what he is hoping to achieve, since virtually every statement he makes just goes to back up our statements. The "debate" has already gone round in circles there again and he has already turned abusive. I really can't see what the agenda is here, its eventually going to end up in arbcom if it continues as it has so far.
I still have a nagging suspicion we're dealing with a sock here, I wonder if there is any way to check? Justin A Kuntz 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |